NALLUSAMY MANOJKUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFF

HCAL 1476/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1476 of 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  The Form 86 be amended to name the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 13 December 2022 (“Form 86”), the applicant, a national of India, applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board / the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 8 December 2022 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 26 October 2021 and rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  In the Form 86, the member of the Board was named as the putative respondent while the Board was named as the putative interested party. Instead, the Board should be the putative respondent, and the Director should be the putative interested party. The Form 86 shall be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.  I refer to the Board’s Decision for the background of the applicant, the basis of the claim, the evidence and the argument the applicant has relied upon, which will not be repeated herein.

4.  The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Given the seriousness of the issue involved in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decisions of the Board. However, the Court will not intervene unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those decisions: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at paragraph 14.

5.  General assertions without particulars cannot be effective grounds to support a judicial review: see Re Fabio Arlyn Timogan [2020] HKCA 971, at paragraph 23.

6.  The present application for leave is meant to be a filtering process, and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at paragraph 23. I will therefore provide brief reasons for my decision as follows.

Discussion

7.  The applicant has not provided any grounds for the intended application for judicial review. In the affirmation in support, the applicant briefly stated that his life was still in danger in his home country and pleaded to stay in Hong Kong.

8.  At the hearing on 6 May 2026, the applicant confirmed that he did not have any submissions to supplement the documents filed in support of the application under the Form 86.

9.  Applying the enhanced standard of scrutiny, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.  The Board’s Decision has, with respect, correctly and comprehensively set out the applicable legal principles. I do not see any errors in either the summary or the application of those legal principles.

11.  The Board’s Decision has also set out the procedural history of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim, including the details of the hearing before the Board on 11 May 2022 (see paragraphs 2, 21 and 25 of the Board’s Decision). The applicant has not made any complaints of irregularities or unfairness in the entire process.

12.  After a detailed analysis of the applicant’s evidence given both before and at the hearing, the Board identified inconsistencies between evidence given at different stages which were too numerous and impossible to reconcile, leading the Board to conclude that the applicant was not a credible witness, and his factual assertions regarding the purported threat of violence posed by the father of his lover were exaggerations (see paragraphs 30 to 37 of the Board’s Decision). Further, the Board held that, even if the threat were assumed to be true, the applicant still had failed to established other elements of the proscribed risks (see paragraphs 41 and 44 to 56 of the Board’s Decision). In any event, the Board took the view that state protection would be available, and internal relocation would be possible and not unduly harsh (see paragraphs 41 to 43 and paragraphs 57 to 59 of the Board’s Decision). Based on the available materials, the conclusions of the Board were clearly justifiable. I do not see any basis to suggest that the Board was irrational based on the principle set out in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

13.  I therefore dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Form 86.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1